this post was submitted on 25 Mar 2024
605 points (97.3% liked)
Not The Onion
12359 readers
1871 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Chubb did a fully collateralized bond. Meaning they got something of actual value, not just trump's word. In this case a Schawb brokerage account full of stocks and bonds for (I believe) more than the value of the bond. Plus Chubb probably added a fee on top of the value of the bond to service the transaction. When trump loses the E Jean Carroll appeal, Chubb will hand over cash and sell off the assets in the Schawb account and pocket their service fee.
Why would they do it this way instead of just directly selling what's in the account? I get that it takes time to unwind stuff like that, but surely it can be done in the time the judge gave?
Taxes. If by some stroke of miracle he wins the appeal, he won't have to pay capital gains taxes that he otherwise would have had to pay if the portfolio was liquidated.
This. And to put numbers on it, long term cap gains taxes (for things in the account held for 2 years or more) is 20%. For short term (things in the account owned for less that 2 years) it can be as 37%. So if the account is just used as collateral, and Chubb charged a fee of less than 20% then the bond is a cheaper way to get the money for the appeal.